14 January 2017

EU rights for robots?

The European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs in a draft report on Civil Law Rules on Robotics has called for a new legel framework for artificial intelligence, with recommendations that are unlikely to be embraced by the full Parliament later in the year.
The draft report comments
-

Introduction

A.
whereas from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein's Monster to the classical myth of
Pygmalion, through the story of Prague's Golem to the robot of Karel Čapek, who
coined the word, people have fantasised about the possibility of building intelligent
machines, more often than not androids with human features;

B.
whereas now that humankind stands on the threshold of an era when ever more
sophisticated robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence
("AI") seem poised to unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no
stratum of society untouched, it is vitally important for the legislature to consider all its
implications;

C.
whereas between 2010 and 2014 the average increase in sales of robots stood at 17%
per year and in 2014 sales rose by 29%, the highest year-on-year increase ever, with
automotive parts suppliers and the electrical/electronics industry being the main drivers
of the growth; whereas annual patent filings for robotics technology have tripled over
the last decade;

D.
whereas in the short to medium term robotics and AI promise to bring benefits of
efficiency and savings, not only in production and commerce, but also in areas such as
transport, medical care, education and farming, while making it possible to avoid
exposing humans to dangerous conditions, such as those faced when cleaning up
toxically polluted sites; whereas in the longer term there is potential for virtually
unbounded prosperity;

E.
whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part
of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots,
so raising concerns about
the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis
of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the
distribution of wealth and influence;

F.
whereas the causes for concern also include physical safety, for example when a robot's
code proves fallible, and the potential consequences of system failure or hacking of
connected robots and robotic systems
at a time when
increasingly autonomous
applications come into use or are impending
whether it be in relation to
cars and drones
or
to care robots and robots used for maintaining public order and policing;

G.
whereas many basic questions of data protection have already become the subject of
consideration in the general contexts of the internet and e-commerce, but whereas
further aspects of data ownership and the protection of personal data and privacy might
still need to be addressed, given that applications and appliances will communicate with
each other and with databases without humans intervening or possibly without their
even being aware of what is going on;

H.
whereas the 'soft impacts' on human dignity may be difficult to estimate, but will still
need to be considered if and when robots replace human care and companionship, and
whereas questions of human dignity also can arise in the context of 'repairing' or
enhancing human beings;

I.
whereas ultimately there is a possibility that within the space of a few decades AI could
surpass human intellectual capacity in a manner which, if not prepared for, could pose a
challenge to humanity's capacity to control its own creation and, consequently, perhaps
also to its capacity to be in charge of its own destiny and to ensure the survival of the
species;

J.
whereas several foreign jurisdictions, such as the US, Japan, China and South Korea,
are considering, and to a certain extent have already taken, regulatory action with
respect to robotics and AI, and whereas some Member States have also started to
reflect
on possible legislative changes in order to take account of emerging applications of
such
technologies;

K.
whereas European industry could benefit from a coherent approach to regulation at
European level, providing predictable and sufficiently clear conditions under which
enterprises could develop applications and plan their business models on a European
scale while ensuring that the EU and its Member States maintain control over the
regulatory standards to be set, so as not to be forced to adopt
and live with standards set
by others, that is to say the third states which are also
at
the forefront of the
development of robotics and AI;

General principles

L.
whereas, until such time, if ever, that robots become or are made self-aware, Asimov's
Laws
must be regarded as being directed at the designers, producers and operators of
robots, since those laws cannot be converted into machine code;

M.
whereas, nevertheless, a series of rules, governing in particular liability and ethics and
reflecting the
intrinsically European and humanistic values that characterise Europe's
contribution to society, are necessary;

N.
whereas the European Union could play an essential role in establishing basic ethical
principles to be respected in the development, programming and use of robots and AI
and in the incorporation of
such
principles into European regulations and codes of
conduct, with the aim of shaping the technological revolution so that it serves humanity
and so that the benefits of advanced robotics and AI are broadly shared, while as far as
possible avoiding potential pitfalls;

O.
whereas a gradualist, pragmatic cautious approach of the type advocated by Jean
Monnet
should be adopted
for Europe;

P.
whereas it is appropriate, in view of the stage reached in the development of robotics
and AI, to start with civil liability
issues
and to consider whether a strict liability
approach based on who is best placed to insure is not the best starting point;

Liability

Q.
whereas, thanks to the impressive technological advances of the last decade, not only
are today's robots able to perform activities which used to be typically and exclusively
human, but the development of autonomous and cognitive features
–
e.g. the ability to
learn from experience and take independent decisions
–
has made them more and more
similar to agents that interact with their environment and are able to alter it
significantly; whereas, in such a context, the legal responsibility arising from a robot’s
harmful action becomes a crucial issue;

R.
whereas a robot's autonomy can be defined as the ability to take decisions and
implement them in the outside world, independently of external control or influence;
whereas this autonomy is of a purely technological nature and its degree depends on
how sophisticated a robot's interaction with its environment has been designed to be;

S.
whereas the more autonomous robots are, the less they can be considered simple tools in
the hands of other actors (such as the manufacturer, the owner, the user, etc.); whereas
this, in turn, makes the ordinary rules on liability insufficient and calls for new rules
which focus on how a machine can be held
–
partly or entirely
–
responsible for its acts
or omissions; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgent to address
the fundamental question of whether robots should possess a legal status;

T.
whereas, ultimately, robots' autonomy raises the question of their nature in the light of
the existing legal categories
–
of whether they should be regarded as natural persons,
legal persons, animals or objects
–
or whether a new category should be created, with its
own specific features and implications as regards the attribution of rights and duties,
including liability for damage;

U.
whereas under the current legal framework robots cannot be held liable per se for acts or
omissions that cause damage to third parties; whereas the existing rules on liability
cover cases where the cause of the robot’s act or omission can be traced back to a
specific human agent such as the manufacturer, the owner or the user and where that
agent could have foreseen and avoided the robot’s
harmful behaviour; whereas, in
addition, manufacturers, owners or users could be held strictly liable for acts or
omissions of a robot if, for example, the robot
were
categorised as a dangerous object or
if it fell within product liability rules;

V.
whereas in the scenario where a robot can take autonomous decisions, the traditional
rules will not suffice to activate a robot's liability, since they would not make it possible
to identify the party responsible for providing compensation and to require this party to
make good the damage it has caused;

X.
whereas the shortcomings of the current legal framework are apparent in the area of
contractual liability insofar as machines designed to choose their counterparts, negotiate
contractual terms, conclude contracts and decide whether and how to implement them
make the traditional rules inapplicable, which highlights the need for new, more up-to-date ones;

Y.
whereas, as regards non-contractual liability, can only cover damage caused by
a
robot's manufacturing defects and on
condition that the injured person is able to prove the actual damage, the defect in the
product and the causal relationship between damage and defect (strict liability or
liability without fault);

Z.
whereas, notwithstanding the scope of the Directive 85/374/EEC, the current legal
framework would not be sufficient to cover the damage caused by the new generation of
robots, insofar as they can be equipped with adaptive and learning abilities entailing a
certain degree of unpredictability in their behaviour, since these robots would
autonomously learn from their own, variable experience and interact with their
environment in a unique and unforeseeable manner;

The report, underGeneral principles concerning the development of robotics and artificial intelligence for
civil use, accordingly

1.
Calls on the Commission to propose a common European definition of smart
autonomous
robots and their subcategories by taking into consideration the following
characteristics of a smart robot:
o
acquires autonomy through sensors and/or by exchanging data with its
environment (inter
-
connectivity) and trades
and analyses
data
o
is self-learning (optional criterion)
o
has a physical support;
o
adapts its behaviours and actions to its environment;

2.
Considers that a system of registration of advanced robots should be introduced, and
calls on the Commission to establish criteria for the classification of robots with a view
to identifying the robots that would need to be registered;

3.
Underlines that many robotic applications are still in an experimental phase; welcomes
the fact that more and more research projects are being funded with national and
European money; calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen
financial instruments for research projects in robotics and ICT; emphasises that
sufficient resources need to be devoted to the search for solutions to the social and
ethical
challenges that the technological development and its applications raise;

4.
Asks the Commission to foster research programmes that include a mechanism for
short-term verification of the outcomes in order to understand what real risks and
opportunities are associated with the dissemination of these technologies; calls on the
Commission to combine all its effort in order to guarantee a smoother transition for
these technologies from research to commercialisation on the
market;

Ethical principles

5.
Notes that the potential for empowerment through the use of robotics is nuanced by a
set of tensions or risks relating to human safety, privacy, integrity, dignity, autonomy
and data ownership;

6.
Considers that a guiding ethical framework for the design, production and use of robots
is needed to complement the legal recommendations of the report and the existing
national and
Union
acquis; proposes, in the annex to the resolution, a framework in the
form of a charter consisting of a code of conduct for robotics engineers, of a code for
research ethics committees when reviewing robotics protocols and of model licences for
designers and users;

7.
Points out that the guiding ethical framework should be based on the principles of
beneficence, non-maleficence and autonomy, as well as on the principles enshrined in
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as human dignity and human rights,
equality, justice and equity, non-discrimination and non-stigmatisation, autonomy and
individual responsibility, informed consent,
privacy and social responsibility, and on
existing ethical practices and codes;

A European Agency

8.
Calls for the creation of a European Agency for robotics and artificial intelligence in
order to provide the technical, ethical and regulatory expertise needed to support the
relevant public actors, at both EU and Member State level, in their efforts to ensure a
timely and well-informed response to the new opportunities and challenges arising from
the technological development of robotics;

9.
Considers that
the potential of robotics use and the present investment dynamics justify
the European Agency being equipped with a proper budget and being staffed with
regulators and external technical and ethical experts dedicated to the cross-sectorial
and multidisciplinary monitoring of robotics-based applications, identifying standards
for best practice, and, where appropriate, recommending regulatory measures, defining
new principles and addressing potential consumer protection issues and systematic
challenges; asks the Commission and the European Agency to report to the European
Parliament on the latest developments in robotics on an annual basis;
Intellectual property rights and the flow of data

10.
Notes that there are no legal provisions that specifically apply to robotics, but that
existing legal regimes and doctrines can be readily applied to robotics while some
aspects appear to need specific consideration; calls on the Commission to come forward
with a balanced approach to intellectual property rights when applied to hardware and
software standards,
and codes that protect innovation and at the same time foster
innovation; calls on the Commission to elaborate criteria for an ‘own intellectual
creation’ for copyrightable works produced by computers or robots;

11.
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in the development of
any EU policy on robotics, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded in line
with the principles of necessity and proportionality; calls, in this regard, on
the
Commission to foster the development of standards for the concepts of privacy by
design and privacy by default, informed consent and encryption;

12.
Points out that the use of personal data as a 'currency' with which services can be
'bought' raises new issues in need of clarification; stresses that the use of personal data
as a 'currency' must not lead to a circumvention of the basic principles governing the
right to privacy and data protection;

Standardisation, safety and security

13.
Calls on the Commission to continue to work on the international harmonisation of
technical standards, in particular together with the European Standardisation
Organisations and the International Standardisation Organisation, in order to avoid
fragmentation of the inter
nal market and to meet consumers’ concerns; asks the
Commission to analyse existing European legislation with a view to checking the need
for adaption in light of the development of robotics and artificial intelligence;

14.
Emphasises that testing robots in real-life scenarios is essential for the identification and
assessment of the risks they might entail, as well as of their technological development
beyond a pure experimental laboratory phase; underlines, in this regard, that testing of
robots in real-life scenarios, in particular in cities and on roads, raises numerous
problems and requires an effective monitoring mechanism; calls on the Commission to
draw up uniform criteria across all Member States which individual Member States
should use in order to
identify areas where experiments with robots are permitted;

Autonomous vehicles

15.
Considers that the automotive sector is in most urgent need of European and global
rules to ensure the cross-border development of automated vehicles so as to fully exploit
their economic potential and benefit from the positive effects of technological trends;
emphasises that fragmented regulatory approaches would hinder implementation and
jeopardise European competitiveness; notes that although current private international
law rules on traffic accidents applicable within the EU do not need urgent modification
to accommodate the development of autonomous vehicles, simplifying the current dual
system for defining applicable law (based on Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the
European Parliament and of the Council
and the 1971 Hague Convention on the law
applicable to traffic accidents) would improve legal certainty and limit possibilities for
forum shopping;

Care robots

16.
Points out that human contact is one of the fundamental aspects of human care; believes
that replacing the human factor with robots could dehumanise caring practices;

Medical robots

17.
Underlines the importance of appropriate training and preparation for doctors and care
assistants in order to secure the hig
hest degree of professional competence possible, as
well as to protect patients' health; underlines the need to define the minimum
professional requirements that a surgeon must meet in order to be allowed to use
surgical robots; emphasises the special importance of training for users to allow them to
familiarise themselves with the technological requirements in this field; draws attention
to the rising trend towards self-diagnosis using a mobile robot which makes diagnoses
and might take over the role of a
doctor;

Human repair and enhancement

18.
Notes the great potential of robotics in the field of repairing and compensating for
damaged organs and human functions, but also the complex questions raised in
particular by the possibilities of human enhancement;
asks for the establishment of
committees on robot ethics in hospitals and other health care institutions tasked with
considering and assisting in resolving unusual, complicated ethical problems involving
issues that affect the care and treatment of patients; calls on the Commission and the
Member States to develop guidelines to aid in the establishment and functioning of
such committees;

Drones (RPAS)

19.
Stresses the importance of a European framework for remotely piloted aircraft systems
(RPAS) to prote
ct the safety, security and privacy of EU citizens, and calls on the
Commission for a follow-up to the recommendations of the European Parliament
resolution of 29 October 2015
on safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS),
known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), in the field of civil aviation

20.
Draws attention to the Commission's forecast that by 2020 Europe might be facing a
shortage of up to 825000 ICT professionals and that 90% of jobs will require at least
basic digital skills; welcomes the Commission’s initiative of proposing a roadmap for
the possible use and revision of a Digital Competence framework and descriptors of
Digital Competences for all levels of learners;

21.
Considers that getting more
young women
interested in a digital career and placing
more women in digital jobs would benefit the digital industry, women themselves and
Europe's economy; calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch initiatives
in order to support women in
ICT and to boost their e-skills;

22.
Calls on the Commission to start monitoring job trends more closely, with a special
focus on the creation and loss of jobs in the different fields/areas of qualification in
order to know in which fields jobs are being
created and those in which jobs are being
destroyed as a result of the increased use of robots;

23.
Bearing in mind the effects that the development and deployment of robotics and AI
might have on employment and, consequently, on the viability of the social security
systems of the Member States, consideration should be given to the possible need to
introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the
contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of
taxation and social security contributions; takes the view that in the light of the possible
effects on the labour market of robotics and AI a general basic income should be
seriously considered, and invites all Member States to do so;

Liability

24.
Considers that robots' civil liability is a crucial issue which needs to be addressed at EU
level so as to ensure the same degree of transparency, consistency and legal certainty
throughout the European Union for the benefit of consumers and businesses
alike;

25.
Asks the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a legislative instrument on legal
questions related to the development of robotics and artificial intelligence foreseeable in
the next 10-15 years, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex
hereto; further calls on the Commission, once technological developments allow
the
possibility for
robots whose degree of autonomy is higher than what is reasonably
predictable at present
to be developed, to propose an update of the relevant legislation in
due time;

26.
Considers that, whatever legal solution it applies to robots' liability in cases other than
those of damage to property, the future legislative
instrument should in no way restrict
the type or the extent of the damages which may be recovered, nor should it limit the
forms of
compensation
which may be offered to the aggrieved party, on the sole
grounds that damage is caused by a non-human agent;

27.
Considers that the future legislative instrument should provide for the application of
strict liability as a rule, thus requiring only proof that damage has occurred and the
establishment of a causal link between the harmful behaviour of the robot and the
damage suffered by the injured party;

28.
Considers that, in principle, once the ultimately responsible parties have been identified,
their liability would be proportionate to the actual level of instructions given to the
robot and of its autonomy, so
that the greater a robot's learning capability or autonomy
is, the lower other parties' responsibility should be, and the longer a robot's 'education'
has lasted, the greater the responsibility of its 'teacher' should be; notes, in particular,
that skills
resulting from 'education' given to a robot should be not confused with skills
depending strictly on its self-learning abilities when seeking to identify the person to
whom the robot's
harmful
behaviour is actually due;

29.
Points out that a possible solution to the complexity of allocating responsibility for
damage caused by increasingly autonomous robots could be an obligatory insurance
scheme, as is already the case, for instance, with cars; notes, nevertheless, that unlike
the insurance system for road
traffic, where the insurance covers human acts and
failures, an insurance system for robotics could be based on the obligation of the
producer to take out an insurance for the autonomous robots it produces;

30.
Considers that, as is the case with the insurance of motor vehicles, such an insurance
system could be supplemented by a fund in order to ensure that reparation can be made
for damage in cases where no insurance
cover
exists; calls on the insurance industry to
develop new products that are in line with the advances in robotics;

31.
Calls on the Commission, when carrying out an impact assessment of its future
legislative instrument, to explore the implications of all possible legal solutions, such
as:

a)
establishing a compulsory insurance scheme whereby, similarly to what already
happens with cars, producers or owners of robots would be required to take out
insurance cover for the damage potentially caused by their robots;

b)
ensuring that a compensation fund would not only serve the purpose of
guaranteeing
compensation
if the damage caused by a robot was not covered by
an insurance
–
which would in any case remain its primary goal
–
but also that of
allowing various financial operations in the interests of the robot, such as
investments, donations or
payments made to smart autonomous robots for their
services, which could be transferred to the fund;

c)
allowing the manufacturer, the programmer, the owner or the user to benefit from
limited liability insofar as smart autonomous robots would be endowed with a
compensation fund
–
to which all parties could contribute in varying proportions
–
and damage to property could only be claimed
for
within the limits of that
fund,
other types of damage not being subject to such limits;

d)
deciding whether to create a general fund for all smart autonomous robots or to
create an individual fund for each and every robot category, and whether a
contribution should be paid as a one-off fee when placing the robot on the market
or whether periodic contributions should be
paid during the lifetime of the robot;

e)
ensuring that the link between a robot and its fund would be made visible by an
individual registration number appearing in a specific EU register, which would
allow
anyone
interacting with the robot to be informed about the nature of the
fund, the limits of its liability in case of damage to property, the names and the
functions of the contributors and all other relevant details;

f)
creating a specific legal status for robots, so that at least the most sophisticated
autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons
with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage
they may cause, and applying electronic personality to cases where robots make
smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties
independently;

International aspects

32.
Notes the need also to consider amendments to international agreements such as the
Vienna Convention on Road Traffic and the Hague Traffic Accident Convention;

33.
Strongly encourages international cooperation in setting regulatory standards under the
auspices of the United Nations;

34.
Points out that the restrictions and conditions laid down in the 'Dual use regulation
on
the trade in dual-use items
–
goods, software and technology that can be used for both
civilian and military applications and/or can contribute to the proliferation of
weapons
of
mass
destruction
–
should apply to applications of robotics as well;

Final aspects

35.
Requests
the Commission
to submit, on the basis of Article 225 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a directive on civil law rules on
robotics, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex hereto;

36.
Confirms that the recommendati
ons respect fundamental rights and the principle of
subsidiarity;

37.
Considers that the requested proposal will not have any financial implications;

38.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying detailed
recommendations to the Commission and the Council.

Copyright & Liability

Statements in this blog are my own, rather than that of the University of Canberra.

The text and images are protected under Australian and international copyright and trade mark law. The blog does not represent legal advice. It is for informational purposes only; publication does not create an attorney-client relationship and nothing on this blog constitutes a solicitation for business.

The author pleads guilty to charges of irreverence, irony, indignation and honestly-held opinion.